Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions

Question 1

Title 28 U.S.C. §1257 provides that judgements of state courts are reviewable by the Supreme Court if:

Answer 1

1. CERT has been granted by the Supreme Court
2. State court judgment is final – FINAL JUDGMENT RULE
   a. The Supreme Court can only rule on final judgements of the highest state court available to hear the case (typically state supreme court) to preserve judicial efficiency and federalism.
   b. A decision is deemed final if. . .
   i. Additional proceedings are a formality only and would not change federal law ruling.
   ii. Without Supreme Court review at the time (before final judgment), there would be no opportunity to review federal issues.
   iii. Federal issue is the only issue in the case and the state court has ruled on that issue.
3. State court judgment CANNOT be sustained on an INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE STATE GROUND (IASG)
   a. State law must be INDEPENDENT of federal law and ADEQUATE to support the state court decision
   i. INDEPENDENT: basis for holding must be state aw.
   1. See Michigan v. Long (state courts must make state law grounds explicitly clear in decisions because if decision rests on similar state and federal constitutional language, federal courts will assume it is based on federal law). *Same logic as Atascadero Congressional intent to abrogate.
   ii. ADEQUATE: state ground can be procedural or substantive; but cannot violate federal law and must be supported by the record
   b. IASG arise if…..
   i. The Supreme Court grants CERT to review state court decision that contains both federal and state questions OR
   ii. A federal court collaterally reviews a state court’s judgment. affirming criminal conviction.

Question 2

Murdock v. City of Memphis Test:

Answer 2

When there is a FEDERAL QUESTION raised in in STATE court and DECIDED by a state court…

1. Was the federal question decided correctly in state court?
   a. If yes, then affirm the decision.
   b. If no, then look to whether there was an IASG.
   i. If there IS an IASG, then affirm without checking the merits of the IASG.
   ii. If there is NOT IASG, then remand/reverse because the federal question was decided improperly.

Question 3

Fox Film v. Muller Test:

THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW

Answer 3

Instead of asking whether the federal question was decidedly correct in state court first, ask whether there is an IASG to prevent federal courts from hearing unnecessary federal questions.

1. Was there an IASG?
   a. If no, then reverse/remand.
   b. If yes, then look to whether the federal question was correctly decided.
   i. If yes, then affirm.
   ii. If no, then reverse/remand.

Question 4

State Procedural Barriers to Supreme Court Review

Answer 4

Procedural rules in state courts are independent of and adequate to support a state court judgment (thus barring Supreme Court review of the federal issue), unless the federal claim could not have been anticipated.

 - See Herndon v. Georgia (an attempt to raise a federal question after judgment, during a petition for rehearing, is too late). 
      * NOTE EXCEPTION: a federal claim is timely if the ruling of the state court violates the Constitution, and the adverse ruling could not have been anticipated. In Herndon, the adverse ruling should have been anticipated, no Supreme Court jurisdiction.  

The purpose of the state procedural rule must serve a legitimate state interest before it will prevent the US Supreme Court from reviewing a federal claim, i.e. if there is no legitimate state purpose, or that purpose is fulfilled by another rule, the Supreme Court can take jurisdiction.
- See Henry v. Mississippi (as applied the state’s insistence on compliance with its procedural rule serves a state interest and was clearly announced).

Question 5

Anti-Injunction Act

Answer 5

“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

Question 6

Anti-Injunction Act

The Anti-Injunction Act is a federal statute that RESTRICTS a federal court’s ability to grant an INJUNCTION against ONGOING STATE COURT proceedings (to avoid unnecessary friction between state and federal courts) unless:

Answer 6

The Anti-Injunction Act is a federal statute that RESTRICTS a federal court’s ability to grant an INJUNCTION against ONGOING STATE COURT proceedings (to avoid unnecessary friction between state and federal courts) unless:

1. EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED by an Act of Congress
   a. See Mitchum v. Foster (§1983 is express authorization for injunctive relief).
   i. Mitchum Test: whether an act of Congress CLEARLY creates a FEDERAL RIGHT or REMEDY enforceable in a court of equity could be given its intended scope ONLY by the STAY of a state of state court proceedings.
   - Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to 1983 claims
2. NECESSARY in AID OF ITS JURISDICTION
   a. Klein v. Burke Construction (where federal court has possession of property, which is subject to the litigation or basis for the jurisdiction, an injunction rather than a state court proceeding is appropriate to allow federal court to maintain authority over the property).
3. Needs to PROTECT/EFFECTUATE its JUDGEMENTS
4. US or FEDERAL AGENCY brings the case
   a. See Leiter Minerals v. US (US can obtain injunction in cases it brings).
   b. See NLRB v. Nash-Finch (federal agencies can obtain injunction in cases it brings).
5. Common law exceptions involving “IN REM” JURISDICTION
   a. See Toucey v. New York Life Insurance (injunctions are allowed to protect in rem [personal property] jurisdiction).

Question 7

Framework of Analysis: Anti-Inunction Act

Answer 7

[There is an ongoing state court proceeding and a federal court is deciding whether it should hear the case or abstain because of the AIA.]

Steps to Anti-Injunction Act Analysis:

1. What kind of CLAIM is the plaintiff bringing: is the claim a §1983 claim?
   a. If yes, then Anti-Injunction Act does NOT apply. Go to question 2.
   b. If n, then AIA does apply and the federal court must NOT grant an injunction UNLESS:
   i. EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED by Congress
   ii. Necessary in AID OF ITS JURISDICTION
   iii. Needs to PROTECT/EFFECTUATE its JUDGMENTS
   iv. US or FEDERAL AGENCY brings the case
   v. Involves IN REM JURISDICTION
2. Does YOUNGER abstention apply?
   a. If the case is to enjoin ONGOING STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, then the federal court must abstain unless:
   i. Threat of IRREPARABLE HARM is GREAT and IMMEDIATE
   ii. Prosecutor is motivated by “BAD FAITH” or “HARASSMENT”
   iii. State statute FLAGRANTLY and PATENTLY VIOLATES the Constitution.
   iv. There is NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT STATE LAW, so the only viable option is to raise pending federal court proceedings.